The Lobbyist in the Town Hall: A Labour Councillor, an Israeli Arms Firm, and the War on Protest 

A Labour councillor and PR executive, Georgia Pickering, faces allegations of a significant conflict of interest after Private Eye reported she claimed involvement in placing a story in The Times that suggested Iran was funding the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action; the story appeared the same day the Labour government moved to ban the group, which is a primary target of Pickering’s PR firm’s client, Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.

While both the Labour Party and her firm, CMS Strategic, deny the allegation, the case highlights profound ethical concerns over the intersection of political office, defence lobbying, and government power, especially as the proscription has led to severe legal consequences for activists, raising questions about whether corporate interests are unduly influencing state actions against dissent.

The Lobbyist in the Town Hall: A Labour Councillor, an Israeli Arms Firm, and the War on Protest 

In the intricate dance of British politics, where public service and private interests often share a crowded floor, a story emerging from the unlikely locale of Bracknell Forest raises a stark question: where does a politician’s duty to their constituents end, and their professional obligations to a global defence contractor begin? 

This is the central dilemma at the heart of the controversy surrounding Georgia Pickering, a Labour councillor who also serves as the managing director of the public relations firm CMS Strategic. The firm counts among its key clients Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer and a prime target of the now-proscribed protest group, Palestine Action. The situation, which intertwines political power, strategic communications, and the highly charged politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, presents a potent case study in modern ethical grey areas. 

The Allegation: A Planted Story and a Political Smokescreen? 

The spark that ignited this debate was a report from Private Eye magazine. The investigative publication cited a “trusted witness” who claimed that Pickering had taken credit for “placing” a story in The Times on June 23, 2025. This story reported that Home Office officials were investigating whether Iran was funding Palestine Action, suggesting the group’s objectives were “aligned” with the Iranian regime. 

The timing was significant. The article appeared on the very day the then-Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced the government’s intention to ban Palestine Action. For critics, the sequence of events suggested a coordinated effort to legitimise the proscription by linking a domestic direct-action group to a hostile foreign state, thereby escalating the perceived threat. 

Both CMS Strategic and the Labour Party have issued firm denials. A Labour Party spokesperson stated, “Any suggestion that Councillor Pickering was involved with The Times article… is categorically untrue.” Similarly, the Bracknell Forest Council, where Pickering serves as chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission, distanced itself, noting that councillors’ private work is “separate from the council.” 

However, in the world of strategic communications, denials are standard procedure. The deeper issue lies not in a single, deniable claim, but in the pervasive and systemic conflict of interest that Pickering’s dual roles represent. 

The Uncomfortable Intersection: Elbit, Labour, and the “Armed Forces Champion” 

The heart of the matter is CMS Strategic’s work for Elbit Systems. For years, Palestine Action has targeted Elbit’s UK factories and offices, using tactics of direct action—including break-ins and spraying red paint—to disrupt the production of drones and other military technology which, they claim, are used by Israel against Palestinians. The group’s activism has been a persistent thorn in the side of the arms company. 

CMS Strategic positions itself as a specialist in this arena. Its website boasts of “excellent relationships in the defence media, industry, Armed Forces and the UK Ministry of Defence.” It’s the job of a PR firm like CMS to protect its clients’ reputations and shape the narrative around them. In this context, shaping the narrative around Palestine Action—portraying it as a potentially foreign-funded extremist group rather than a grassroots protest movement—would be a strategic masterstroke for Elbit. 

This is where Pickering’s role as a Labour councillor becomes deeply problematic. Since May 2023, she has been an elected Labour official. Since June 2023, she has held the poignant title of the council’s “armed forces community champion.” And, most strikingly, as of July 2025—the very month the Labour government proscribed Palestine Action—she was co-chairing the defence and aerospace policy network for the Labour in Communications network. 

The questions write themselves: 

• Can a councillor who is an “armed forces champion” truly separate that role from her professional duty to advocate for a foreign weapons manufacturer? 

• Does her position within Labour-linked communications networks create an unhealthily close channel between a private defence lobbyist and the governing party? 

• Most critically, does the Labour government’s imposition of a partial arms embargo on Israel create a situation where one of its own councillors is professionally invested in a firm potentially affected by that very policy? 

This isn’t necessarily about proving a clandestine meeting or a smoking-gun email. It’s about the perception of influence and the alignment of interests. When a government takes action that directly impacts a PR firm’s client, and the head of that PR firm holds a position within that same government’s party, it erodes public trust in the impartiality of political power. 

The Chilling Effect: Proscription, Prisons, and the Silencing of Dissent 

The consequences of this intertwining of interests extend far beyond political optics. The proscription of Palestine Action in July 2025 was a seismic event. By placing the group on the UK’s list of terrorist organisations, alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda, the government armed itself with draconian powers. Expressing support for the group, or even being a member, now carries a potential 14-year prison sentence. 

This legal reclassification has had immediate, real-world impacts. The article notes that prisoners held on remand for Palestine Action-related offences are facing increased restrictions and have now launched a hunger strike in protest of “systematic abuse” by prison authorities. The case of hunger strikers like Qesser Zurah, Amu Gibb, and Heba Muraisi highlights the human cost of this political decision. 

In this context, a narrative suggesting Iranian ties does not just serve a PR client; it serves to justify the government’s severe crackdown. It transforms activists from citizens engaged in civil disobedience into potential assets of a hostile state, thereby legitimising their harsh treatment and silencing wider public sympathy. The alleged “planted story” must be seen as a potential piece of this larger discursive battle—one where the power to define the narrative is wielded by those with close ties to both the government and the industry being protested. 

A Symptom of a Broader Sickness 

The case of Georgia Pickering is not necessarily an anomaly, but rather a stark example of a common phenomenon in modern politics: the revolving door and the blurring of lines between regulator and regulated. It forces us to question the adequacy of current declarations of interest. Simply declaring a conflict is not the same as resolving it. 

Can an individual ethically navigate the chasm between representing the residents of Bracknell Forest and representing a multinational arms company whose interests are at the centre of one of the world’s most contentious geopolitical conflicts? The roles demand fundamentally different loyalties. 

The controversy underscores a growing concern that corporate influence, particularly from the defence and security sectors, is deeply embedded within the UK’s political fabric. When a councillor can simultaneously be a defence lobbyist, and a government’s proscription of a protest group aligns so perfectly with the interests of that lobbyist’s client, it creates a crisis of confidence in our democratic processes.